On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 18 December 2012 00:53, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>>> On 17 December 2012 14:16, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakan...@vmware.com> 
>>> wrote:
>>>> I also wonder if pg_basebackup should
>>>> include *all* timeline history files in the backup, not just the latest one
>>>> strictly required to restore.
>>> Why? the timeline history file includes the previous timelines already.
>> The original intention was that the WAL archive might contain multiple
>> timeline files corresponding to various experimental recovery attempts;
>> furthermore, such files might be hand-annotated (that's why there's a
>> comment provision).  So they would be at least as valuable from an
>> archival standpoint as the WAL files proper.  I think we ought to just
>> copy all of them, period.  Anything less is penny-wise and
>> pound-foolish.
> What I'm saying is that the new history file is created from the old
> one, so the latest file includes all the history as a direct copy. The
> only thing new is one line of information.

The timeline history file includes only ancestor timelines history. So
the latest one might not include all the history.


Fujii Masao

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to